01-14-2004 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

cetese y a `eanaa 515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada, MN 55117 -1600 (651) 766 -4029 / FAY: (651) 766-4048 www.ci.little- canada.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Fahey & Members of the City Council FROM: Joel Hanson, City Administrator DATE: January 9, 2004 RE: Twin Lake Improvement Options MAYOR 'Michael 1. Fahey COUNCIL, Jim LaValte Matt Anderson Rick Montour Bill Blesener ADMINISTRATOR Joel R. I- Ianson As you know, the roads serving the Twin Lake area are in very poor condition. Before reconstructing, we must build the water system to serve this area. The problem with this concept is that the most economical and practical source of water is from the City of Vadnais Heights. Two concerns have been expressed by the neighborhood with this possibility. One is a concern with Vadnais Heights' water quality. The second deals with installing a looped water main versus a dead -end. Vadnais has taken steps to address the water quality concerns. They shut down Well #1 that served the Twin Lake area and also had high levels or iron and manganese. We also did a sampling of five private wells in the Twin Lake area as well as of the water supplied by Vadnais to Twin Lake Court and Little Canada water at City Hall. Vadnais water is superior to the private wells and appears to be a more than adequate alternative to our water. (Details of the test information are attached. I am assuming those with better results in some categories have softening /treatment equipment in place.) To serve that area with Little Canada Water will cost between $150,000 and $200,000 additional due to the double crossing of the freeway system The second issue is more difficult. Vadnais Heights does not have immediate plans to create the loop of the water main through this area. (It may happen in the next two to three years.) Waiting for the potential to loop this water main while the street continues to deteriorate is a disservice to our residents. Therefore, I am proposing we install the water main at this time and defer the assessment until the system is looped or a resident chooses to hook -up, whichever comes first. The final assessment will be based upon the single frontage maximum rate adjusted for inflation. (For 2004, the cap is projected at $5,606 or three percent over the amount assessed in 2003.) I believe there are two ways to accomplish this assessment goal. The first would be to assess the project as we normally would including interest at current market rates, defer the assessments for those not connecting to the system, and then adjust the final amount to be spread by the difference between the assessments total principal and accrued interest as compared to the maximum single frontage rate in effect at the time of the active assessment. This would take a resolution forgiving the excess interest and means more administrative time in terms of making these calculations. However, I believe it is a manageable process. (This option also assumes the deferral interest rate will exceed inflation. If inflation were higher, an adjustment would not be necessaiy.)